patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,264,318 comments by 15,112 users - HeadSet, Misc, The_Deplorable online now
Where did the anti-science/technology mentality of American society come from?
invite response
2011 Jan 29, 2:06pm 22,078 views 113 comments
« First « Previous Comments 104 - 113 of 113 Search these comments
elliemae
2011 Feb 13, 1:34pm
So angry… are you aware at how angry you are? Your anger and need to mock for me means that your anger has clouded your opinion and that your opinion is therefore utter nonsense.
Could you please make an attempt at communicating without being so very angry through the use of mockery?
Actually, nelson, I read no anger & mockery in Kevin's response. For some of us, it's difficult to catch a point when it's in a paragraph of 623 words. Kevin- and I in turn - mentioned that it would be easier to understand deanrite's message if it were to be broken up into paragraphs. Now that we know it's not possible for him to do so, we have a choice to make. I'll probably read them as best I can because I'm interested in what he has to say.
Thank you for your concern in this matter. It's nice that you care so much.
Perhaps she's taking it on faith that there's 623 words. Otherwise, note that its science that has allowed the word count operation.
Dan8267
2011 Dec 4, 9:58am
The scientific community doesn't do themselves any favors by holding up a theory like "global warming" to be equivalent in legitimacy to Newton's Laws of Gravitation. Any rational scientist still understands the difference between a theory and a law.
It's called The Theory of Gravity for a reason. It is a theory. And a theory is NOT a guess. A theory is a framework that makes various testable predictions. Once something is a theory, it always is a theory even if it is proved or disproved. After all, it can always be tested again. That is the whole point of the Scientific Method.
Dan8267
2011 Dec 4, 10:06am
Something I've noticed a lot as I've gotten older is that american society has become increasingly hostile towards science and technology.
America has always been hostile to math and science with a very brief exception during the 1950s and 1960s when America was in an arms and space race with the Soviet Union. During that brief period, the government, scared shitless that Communism might be appealing to the disenfranchised masses of poor and middle class, used science and the space race to ferment nationalism. And it is only because of that propaganda effort that America is known at all for having had a brief culture of scientific advancement.
[Side Note: The government today is scared shitless that Socialism might be appealing to the disenfranchised masses of poor and middle class. However, without a competitor, the government has no reason to pay anything more than lip service to science and science education.]
However, during the vast history of the United States, it has been a backwards and illiterate nation. The Scopes Monkey Trial is a perfect example of this. But with a few exceptions like the space race, the race to build a nuclear bomb, and other arms races, America has never had a culture that promoted math, science, and engineering.
America was lucky that despite this fact, a small fraction of a percentage of the population build the home computer and the Internet. However, given the nature of outsourcing the development of this technologies to China and India, I doubt America will keep it lead in Information Technology, if it hasn't already lost the lead.
I want to see the other half of the picture and find out why she needs that towel.
Cook County resident
2011 Dec 5, 7:15pm
It wasn't always like this. We used to actually have engineers and scientists as role models.
Like Edison and Ford? I think of them more as celebrities rather than role models. Self promotion was good for business.
Far fewer celebrity industrialists came on the scene during and after the depression.
Nearly all innovations and patents are now credited to corporations and not to the people who developed them.
The only scientist who quickly comes to mind as a role model is Jonas Salk.
bmwman91
2011 Dec 6, 1:36am
I would definitely put Richard Feynman down as a worthy role-model. Having read his lectures, and biographical works, I would say that he is easily someone that could appeal to a lot of young people. The guy was brilliant, and really encouraged thinking and discovering things for one's self while still making it entertaining to learn.
I'd also put Carl Sagan up there, but I suspect that a lot of younger folks would find him to be a little "odd" in his passion for science. Still, the guy worked hard to bring things to an understandable level for the public.
Cook County resident
2011 Dec 6, 3:01am
Richard Feynman
Carl Sagan
Those are good choices.
I should have addressed Kevin's point more directly rather than nit-pick on the role model issue.
I'm not sure that we are actually becoming more hostile to science and technology itself. The nerd-heros of such action shows as Bones or the CSI shows just the Tontos of the modern world. There's not nearly so much gunplay on the medical shows such as House.
But we have a strange, almost worshipful, attitude about the rich and famous. And the chance of some corporate or university employed scientist becoming a rich celebrity are now just about zilch.
FortWayne
2011 Dec 6, 4:45am
But the hero is never the guy who builds technology. It's always that guy's boss or child. More often than not, the technology maker is the bad guy.
Ironman was the only good guy who could afford it.
« First « Previous Comments 104 - 113 of 113 Search these comments
Something I've noticed a lot as I've gotten older is that american society has become increasingly hostile towards science and technology.
Now, obviously we love the fruits of this stuff. We love our computers, smartphones, GPS, and all the rest. But when it comes to actually building and developing these things? It's all derogatory.
To a certain extent, I can understand subsets of the anti-science people, particularly those bits that disagree with your worldview. I understand why religious people don't want to study biology, chemistry, geology, or even physics in some cases. These sciences frequently lead to uncomfortable confrontations with one's faith.
To a lesser extent, I can understands subsets who want to ignore scientific findings that might point to them doing something harmful to themselves, society, or the planet. Nobody likes to be forced to change what they're doing.
But I really don't get the anti technology crowd. I'm talking about the people who deride anyone who enjoys applied math and science with any number of terms intended to separate them from the "normals". The movies that portray engineers as, at best, socially awkward support personel for the hero. The people who actually look down on anyone who happens to be good at math.
It wasn't always like this. We used to actually have engineers and scientists as role models. We used to consider technological advancement an important factor in growing and developing our economy. We even used to have engineers and scientists who were politicians. There hasn't been a president with an actual technology background since Hoover (though, perhaps that explains the bias...).
During the state of the union, Obama mentioned having a "sputnik moment". His examples were lame. I think that's because there hasn't been a genuine sputnik moment since sputnik itself. What we really need is a new real moment. A "holy shit" moment, if you will, where we actually see some massive breakthrough that comes from a major foreign competitor, ideally China.
It isn't enough to see a country like China simply match something that we've done. China putting a man on the moon or developing a stealth bomber isn't going to spur us to action. China figuring out how to accomplish something major, like a real solution to getting off of fossil fuels or a major breakthrough in medicine might do it.
#politics